Comeback, Interrupted
The scandal's timing is fishy, and Malaysia's rulers haven't hesitated to squelch dissent in the past.
Just a few years ago, Anwar Ibrahim—Malaysia's former deputy prime minister turned opposition leader—was behind bars, and the career of this Western- and market-friendly reformer seemed over. Then, last March, Anwar shocked even his most devout supporters by roaring back onto the political scene, leading the opposition to record gains in parliamentary elections. His opposition coalition won control of five of Malaysia's 13 states and 49 percent of the overall vote. Since then, he has sought to solidify his power base. He announced plans to run for Parliament himself in a by-election in July, and recently said that enough legislators might defect from the long-ruling United Malays National Organization (UMNO)-led coalition that the opposition could win control of the country by September. If that happened it would give Anwar a shot at the prime minister's office—and help him chart one of the greatest political comebacks in history.
All seemed to be going according to plan until June 29, when Anwar got a text message from an unknown source informing him that Saiful Bukhari Azlan, a 23-year-old aide, had accused him of sodomy, a crime punishable by 20 years' imprisonment in Muslim-majority Malaysia. The sense of déjà vu was strong, for UMNO and former prime minister Mahathir Mohammad had used just such a charge to derail Anwar's political career in 1998, when Anwar started showing uncomfortable signs of independence from his repressive old mentor. Now it seems the ruling party may be up to its old tricks once more.
Anwar has called the latest charge against him a "complete fabrication," saying it's an attempt to "undermine the forces of reform and renewal." Malaysia's embattled current prime minister, Abdullah Badawi, has denied all claims of a government plot. But voters aren't buying it: a recent poll by the independent Merdeka Center showed that only 6 percent of respondents believed the allegation against Anwar was true, and 60 percent thought it was politically motivated.
Their skepticism is understandable. The scandal's timing is certainly suspicious. UMNO has never hesitated in the past to squelch dissent when it has felt threatened, and its 50-year grip on power has never been more tenuous than now. Ever since the election, the prime minister has been under pressure to step down. After the vote, Mahathir said that in a similar situation "the Japanese would have performed hara-kiri." On June 18, one of UMNO's coalition partners announced a no-confidence motion against Abdullah (though it never followed through). Then, last week, the prime minister announced plans to step down as head of the party by 2010.
Before the latest allegation was made, Anwar was poised not only to recapture power, but had also threatened to expose the myriad abuses committed during Mahathir's 22-year rule, which ended in 2003. If proved, such charges might even lead to jail time for the former leader and his cronies.
Various conspiracy theories are now circulating, including one claiming that Anwar planted the sodomy charge himself to garner public sympathy. But the consensus seems to be that the accusation is the work of Abdullah's deputy and heir, Najib Razak, a bitter rival of Anwar's. The opposition leader has publicly blamed Najib and his wife, Rosmah, for the affair, which he says is an attempt by them to ruin his chances and distract attention from their own role in a pending murder investigation.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page »
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: plumblossom @ 07/15/2008 12:13:33 AM
Comment: What has USA got to do with what happen in Malaysia? Hasn't USA has enough of its own trouble?
Posted By: chongyeeyap @ 07/12/2008 11:39:04 PM
Comment: PART 5
My wife had paid the Rm.60,000 in time but respondents wanted to set aside the payment on some grounds that payment was after the time stipulated; ANY EXCUSE TO THROW THE PETITION. Upon receipt of the Rm. 60,000, Stephen Lim Chen Ban filed his application for striking out of the petition; and his supporting affidavit affirmed that my wife had sold her ???SHARES??? to him. FOR THIS STATEMENT ALONE, IT IS THE DUTY FOR JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI TO ORDER CROSS EXAMINATION because the allegations of Stephen Lim Cheng Ban in his supporting affidavit WAS OPPOSITE TO THE DENIAL DEPOSED BY MY WIFE;
and having said that IT IS THE DUTY OF A PRESIDING JUDGE TO DETERMINE WHO HAD PERJURED. Therefore IT IS THE DUTY OF JUDGE ZAINON TO ORDER CROSS EXAMINATION; but instead Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali approved Stephen Lim Cheng Ban???s application for striking out of the petition on the grounds that petition showed no cause of action. Please remember that all along (from the very beginning) respondents had already pleaded a ???DEFENCE??? saying first that my wife had transferred her shares and then later by Stephen Lim Cheng Ban that my wife had SOLD HER SHARES TO HIM. This is a real defense and Stephen Lim Cheng Ban cannot then say that there is no cause of action. Here again is evidence that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali had abused her judicial powers because she refused to apply the normal requirements of justice according to law.
This anomaly becomes more embarrassing for Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali because all along my wife had stated that she had the only one and single promoter???s share and not another share more. THIS IS EVIDENCE THAT JUDGE ZAINON BINTI MOHD. ALI did not care what my wife said. Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali has to know that a promoter???s only share CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED in the absence of a third share holder, and my wife had deposed that she had never ever passed any company resolution nor had she ever attended any company board meeting whatsoever. THAT BEING THE FACTS ACCORDING TO THE CASE OF KELAPA SAWIT (TELOK ANSON) SDN. BHD, V YEOH KIM LENG (1991) CA states that any company share that are issued without a company resolution that authorized the issue of the share is void absolutely at time of issue (ab initio). My wife had also deposed that both she and the only other share holder and promoter Stephen Lim Cheng Ban were NEVER EVER ISSUED WITH ANY SHARE HOLDER???S SHARE CERTIFICATE EVER. Therefore, my wife???s supporting affidavit had stated all the facts THAT MAKES RESPONDENTS ALLEGATIONS THAT MY WIFE HAD SOLD HER SHARE IMPOSSIBLE IN LAW. The facts deposed by my wife provided the conditions which makes the claim by respondents that my wife had more than one share and that she had sold her shares NOT POSSIBLE IN LAW. Just cannot be achieved in law.
Posted By: chongyeeyap @ 07/12/2008 11:36:50 PM
Comment: PART 4
Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali is an unashamed LIAR, and she had the co-operation and improper support of our counsel Mr David Hoh, who wrote and had published an article in the web publication ???MALAYSIA TODAY??? in response to my article which was published in the web newspaper, ???MALAYSIA TODAY??? & ???MALAYSIANS UNPLUGGED???, and this article can be read in the archives of the web publication. I still have not read Mr David Hoh???s response as yet and I will only read it when the article becomes relevant in any court proceedings. I had written to the then Chief Justice Tun Fairoz stating that Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali had improperly asked petitioner through her counsel Mr David Hoh to withdraw my wife???s application for leave to cross examine the 3 named perjurors. I did not inform David that I was coming to KL nor the purpose for my visit. However, I received in the evening on the day that I handed my letter to the office of Tun Fairoz, a call from Mr David Hoh to attend his chambers. This surprise arose because Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, when called upon by the chief Justice to explain my letter, Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali, called Mr David Hoh to get me to retract my letter. I was in the chambers of Mr David Hoh???s father Mr Frank Hoh, while the letter of retraction was being drafted by the joint collaboration of Mr David Hoh and Judge zainon binti Mohd. Ali.
How do I know that my letter of retraction was drafted by both Judge Zainon in collaboration with Mr David Hoh ? It is a long story but INTERESTING ! I got very angry with Mr David Hoh when he asked my wife to withdraw her application for leave to cross examine. I did not tell Mr Hoh that I was in KL when I handed my letter to the Chief Justice in the morning, but I received a phone call at my sister???s house where I was staying in the evening; only Mr Hoh would know where I stayed David called and asked me to attend his chambers the next morning and I went. I was made to do ???chit- chat??? with Mr Frank Hoh, while I waited for the letter to be drafted and I know that Judge Zainon binti Mohd. Ali was at the other end of the phone, but you will also be right to say that I guessed it. However, I told Mr David Hoh that I will not read what is written in the letter of retraction, and I will nevertheless sign it but that this fact will be recounted when it becomes necessary. BEAR IN MIND THAT I WILL TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT I SIGNED. Be that as it may, let me shame all Malaysians that this is the quality of one of your most senior Judges of the highest court. We will deal with this matter when it comes up in court.